With Super Bowl LXVII fast approaching, it made me wonder about what makes a group of individuals perform as a superb team.

Tom Landry, famed coach of the Dallas Cowboys, said “A coach is someone who tells you what you don’t want to hear, who has you see what you don’t want to see, so you can be who you’ve always known you can be.” And the equally famous Vince Lombardi of the Green Bay Packers said “Coaching in its truest sense is giving the responsibility to the learner to help them come up with their own answers.”

Clearly, both of these eminent men thought coaching mattered to the success of the individual and thus to the entire team. Out of the separate efforts of each player came a team that worked together to achieve prominence.

Further, in the Financial Times of January 29th an article entitled “Can Coaching Make The Difference” attributes Andy Murray’s success in winning the US Open tennis championship to the coaching he received from former champion Ivan Lendl, ‘who has helped [Murray] to pace his performance and stay calm.’

Which brings me to the age-old question of Leadership vs. Management, at the heart of why good teams, I believe, excel.

John Kotter of The Harvard Business School recently blogged about this subject in “Management is (Still) Not Leadership,” and I think reviewing his points will help us understand why men such as Landry and Lombardi were such superb coaches and leaders over the long-term.

Leadership and management are radically different and not interchangeable terms. The two perform vitally different functions, though both have critical roles to play.

Leaders are not necessarily at the top of an organization or individuals with charismatic and endearing personal characteristics. Likewise, managers do not always play a worker or specialist role. Using these attributes to categorize someone as a leader or manager is a dangerous mistake.

Management is best described as adhering to or executing a ‘set of well-known processes….which help an organization to predictably do what it knows how to do well.’ It is about producing promised products and service consistently across time. Because it is about execution, management is a difficult task. “We constantly underestimate how complex this task is, especially if we are not in senior management jobs,” writes Kotter. Management is crucial he says, but it’s not leadership.

Leadership is entirely different. “It is associated with taking an organization into the future, finding opportunities that are coming at it faster and faster and successfully exploiting those opportunities.” Kotter believes that leadership is about vision, ‘about people buying in, about behavior.’ And because we operate in a world moving at a heady pace, leadership is needed more and from more people, ‘no matter where they are in the hierarchy.’ Assuming that a ‘few extraordinary people at the top can provide all the leadership needed today is ridiculous, and it’s a recipe for failure.’ We need superb management; we need superb leaders. One cannot exist without the other. ‘We need to make our complex organizations reliable and efficient.”

And so we return to football, both an elegant and brutal sport.

A football team is composed, as is any organization or team, of both managers and leaders – you have offensive and defensive team leaders, you have the head coach, and you have the quarterback. Each of them must read the fast-moving changes and adaptations of the opposing team, meting out instructions and directions in real-time to their team mates, who we can say ‘manage the play.’

The team that wins this coming Sunday will be the one that has superb leaders making fine adjustments, empowering the men on the field , and managers who execute brilliantly in the face of constantly changing conditions. It’s a beautiful thing to watch.

Those of you who read my blogs know I write often about the human aspects of IT project failures and the lack of open discussion between technologists and their business colleagues. Well, here comes some more evidence.

Information Week published an article entitled “Heroes Wanted,” which is about the unfortunate lack of technological innovation at a time of great business need. In this well-researched article which is based on responses from both IT and non-It people, we learn even more about the disturbing lack of synchronicity between the need for and delivery of technology. Data collected showed a ‘disparity between how IT views its performance (not bad) and how non-IT pros view it (not good).’

What did they learn specifically?

IT Project Cost and Delivery Not Meeting Expectations: 2/3 (a low number in and of itself) of IT providers thought users were happy with quality, timeliness and cost, but just half of the business managers surveyed agreed. Furthermore, more than half of the business managers still believed IT is still primarily a support or maintenance organization. “Again and again, the data shows a disturbing gap between IT’s perception of itself as reasonably innovative and effective and non-IT’s lukewarm view.”

IT and the Business Look at the Same Situation Differently: for every success story reported in the survey by IT, ‘there were as many cutting comments describing the IT staff — even from IT pros themselves.’ That is, despite seemingly heroic efforts by IT and no customer complaints, IT is still not seen as cutting the muster for business innovation purposes. Indeed, IT is viewed as being a drag on innovation. “The user perception is very low and generally this perception is ignored [italics mine] by senior IT management as not being of importance.” How can the IT function be so cavalier about disregarding survey after survey that business needs are not being met? This is clearly one reason businesses turn to outside providers and pray the cloud answers all their questions and why there’s constant pressure on IT to reduce its costs.

Where Does the Tension Lie? While there’s little debate that IT is critical and that everyone acknowledges technology is of growing importance, it’s difficult to find the cause of the different views, though here are some thoughts:

IT has done such a great job cutting costs, the achievement can ‘run counter to the concept of implementing new technology to drive innovation.’

By making IT more cost efficient, it can ‘result in devaluing IT as the source of those efficiencies do not flow back to most organizations.’ So lots of effort by IT not matched to the business benefit.

While businesses talk about revenue and market share, IT is stuck describing how it reduced costs — not at all what excites wise shareholders.

IT projects often don’t demonstrate direct business benefit. For the business to really appreciate the work IT does, ‘discretionary spending has to be evaluated just like you look at other discretionary resources, like capital.’ (For the number one book on this subject, see George Westerman’s The Real Business of IT: How CIOs Create and Communicate Value.)

Technologists don’t view themselves as decison-makers! The survey revealed that though nearly 85% of businesses want IT to be decision-makers and help with decisions, only 2/3 of IT agreed. I don’t have an answer as to why IT would pass up an opportunity to participate in an activity that would raise their profile among the business. Perhaps technologists are more comfortable around infrastructure and purely technical choices. Maybe they don’t want to subject themselves to the risk of being wrong when in the sights of their business partners.

The only response to improving IT performance and its stature in the eyes of the business is to ‘work closely with business executives to develop innovative applications.’ While this is statement is neither startling nor new, it’s what’s needed on a consistent basis to educate businesses about IT’s essential value in business innovation and growth. IT must participate daily to face doubters and demonstrate how technology-driven opportunities can lead to market success.

Used to be that everyone thought the CIO was prey for the CFO. But times have fortunately changed, with more collegial and valuable relationships being established between the two roles.

In “So, You’re the Boss of the CIO. Now What?” of March 1st in CFO.com, the author cites results of a LinkedIn survey that asked finance executives whether it was a good idea that IT reports to the CFO. The results were 2/3 ‘yes’ and 1/3 ‘no’. Responses ranged widely — no surprise — from “The CFO does not have an understanding of the risks” to a more measured “It depends on the person in charge.”

What drew my attention was the undeniable fact that IT is increasingly under the finance organization. Gartner’s research and that done by the Financial Executives Research Foundation found that nearly half of IT departments (in firms of all sizes) report to the CFO.

Given this fact, what can the CIO do to ensure he or she has an effective relationship with the CFO and the rest of the finance department in order to provide the expected leadership?

Here are my suggestions:

The world of IT is becoming more turbulent with ’emerging technologies transforming both the IT function and the relationship between IT and the business. Software as a service has enabled business leaders to implement applications outside tradition IT (and finance) controls…and workforce mobility has increased the support needs for a broadening set of devices.’ This is a very difficult environment to keep up, assess costs and risks, and design a one-size workable solution. Simply said, there is no way any CFO could maintain (attain?) sufficient knowledge to manage any of this directly. The CIO must step in, realize it is his/her job to build confidence with the CFO by bringing this Tower of Babel under control and creating trust with the CFO. Even the least technology-aware CFO realizes that technology is complex, with unanticipated risks arising as soon as new technology is implemented. That’s why the CFO needs someone he or she can trust and turn to, and someone who can explain the environment in simple, straightforward terms, in a language that anyone could understand.

Technology has two parts: that which is behind the scenes (the infrastructure) and what the client sees (the applications). Each should be portrayed distinctly to the CFO and managed against different criteria. “CFOs need to understand that you have to keep the core running.” Unfortunately, investments in core don’t always yield an obvious ROI — this means the CIO should spend time explaining the different layers of IT. While a new phone system will merely get you better listening clarity and some additional features, a new accounts receivable application that yields cash faster will have a hard dollar benefit. A CIO’s ability to explain the differences is quite nuanced, and he/she must be sensitive to how the CFO will want the story delivered.

A big part of the delivering the story — beyond knowing how the CFO wants information and decisions explained — is ’emphasizing the difference between finance and IT.’ In IT there are jobs that drive revenue (e.g., ‘web enhancements that attract new customers’) and others that don’t (e.g., ‘systems maintenance’). This is likely to be a novel fact to the finance staff and will make forecasting ROI very tricky. ‘Instead, CFOs should look at potential gains’ as opportunities to improve the business overall and the experiences of staff and customers and evaluate projects on these criteria when hard ROI is not determinable. Working with the CFO, the CIO can suggest how to prioritize projects, using categories of benefits and including ROI whenever available. A successful CIO recognizes that a CFO thinks differently.

For effective IT management, a ‘CFO needs to know enough about IT to balance the risk of investing against the risk of not investing, and enough to balance the forms of IT that make money with those that don’t but are essential.’

“CFOs and CIOs are in it together, no matter who reports to whom.” And as in all relationships of this type, understanding and talking are the elements for success.

Jonathan Alter, a well-known author, recently wrote an article in August for Business Week entitled “A Checklist for Change.” While Mr. Alter most often writes about politics, what could be more appropriate than his writing about management? Politics and management are inextricably linked. Committees are inescapable in both arenas.

The premise of the article — and tips to be recalled by even the most experienced and successful managers — is that committees are hell. People in meetings talk in circles for hours and feel ‘they’ve managed to accomplish something when they manage to schedule the next meeting.’ At that point, we all sigh collectively and bolt for the door, praying there’s no followup.

Every so often, a special leader can break the mold and make things happen, and will reach out to other ‘committed change-makers willing to help.’ From here, the manager creates ad hoc teams aimed at ‘narrow, specific change, beginning with like-minded’ individuals at a small meeting.

How do we use the meeting and gathering process to actually get stuff done? “Here are a few do’s and don’ts that might help separate change-makers from time-servers.”

Call Yourself a Team, Not a Committee Words really matter. The key difference is that while you’re a member of a team, you and your team members ‘have to take initiative, stay relentlessly focused, and, in certain situations, lead.’ If you’re a committee the end game is usually difficult to define, and if it’s not reached, the consequences are rarely dire. But if a team fails, everyone has lost. Teams have group commitment; committees do not.

Build the Team with Volunteers If you want committed team participants, you can’t appoint them — then it’s just another assignment. Rather, ask people who you think have a vested interest in the outcome and will be ‘present for the right reasons.’ And don’t worry about titles — ‘passion must trump position to get things cracking.’

Create CompetitionPeople like to compete — we like to know we’re really good at something and have done our best, especially against a peer. Such behavior might seem infantile, but we can’t avoid it — it’s who we are. You might create sub-teams to build a friendly rivalry to extract the most from everyone in the shortest possible time. Friendly competition can ‘leverage change quickly.’

Don’t Tolerate Debbie Downers Should you come upon any team member who ‘introduces obstacles to moving forward,’ meet them head on by asking that they ‘couple the description of the obstacles with a plan for overcoming them.’ Either their motivation will kick-up a notch or they’ll think better the next time when identifying obstacles instead of solutions. Or maybe they’ll just leave the team.

Don’t Reorganize How much effort have we all put into either a reorganization or talking about a potential reorganization? Or the non-effects of the most recently and highly touted one? What Mr. Alter says on this topic is so clear and obvious that I wonder why management doesn’t follow this advice: “The stovepiping that hampers so many bureaucracies can’t be busted on paper, only in practice. Organization charts only matter in organizations that aren’t nimble and effective in the first place.” No reorganization I’ve ever been part of has led to greater efficiency or employee satisfaction.

Don’t Make the Xerox Mistake We all know the failure made by Xerox’s PARC research lab to transform brilliant ideas into world class marketable technology. However, Xerox’s problem was not merely not seeing the opportunity; rather, it was management’s error in not knowing what they had because their focus was too simple. “They weren’t receptive enough to the change underway all around them.” By focusing solely on the technical product, they weren’t able to see the world was moving and changing. Thus, an organization needs to ‘design for change’ in order to adapt and thrive.

I suggest we all consider new ways of working together, not seeking structure or the organization to solve problems for us. Each of us needs to be an adaptable member of a team, helping each other and being as resourceful as we can possibly be.

I came upon a new blog entirely by accident. Normally I scan blogs and never view them again. But this one was different. It’s entitled Treasury Cafe and is written by David Waltz. He has many important things to say and his style is simple and straightforward, which I think all lessons should be.

His latest is on “A Life’s Worth of Leadership Lessons,” in which he uses quotes, some well-known, to introduce leadership lessons. Let me give you the essence of what he’s written about. Each of these is a great lesson for both coaches and coaching clients. And good lessons for life.

Know Thyself: Emotional intelligence is not a fad. Before we interact with others, before we expect people to follow us, ‘we need to understand ourselves with clarity.’ By not acknowledging our strengths, style and weaknesses, ‘we lose the ability to understand how we can impact our teams.’ While our colleagues remain fully aware of what we do well or not, if we don’t, we’ll just go about doing what we’ve always done, hoping it will work, and dismayed that it’s not.

Embrace Challenges: Hard choices are often the wisest choice. Rather spell out the truth, regardless of how difficult, than to disappoint later with an apology or restatement. “In school, if we choose easy we learn little, if we choose hard we learn a lot.” Robert Frost’s poem ‘The Road Not Taken’ is worth re-reading if this lesson doesn’t ring true.

Accomplish the Mission and Care for Your People: Apollo 13 was about the commander caring for his crew and accomplishing the mission, in that order. These two lessons are true for leadership, under any conditions. Just think how more engaged our workforce would be when they know that what they worked on was going to be seen through to the end and that they were cared for by colleagues and managers – indeed, a 360 degree of caring.

It’s Sergeants Who Win the Wars: It’s the truck drivers, the people who man the manufacturing plant, the engineers who design products and processes, and the accountants who balance the books each month that exemplify what it takes to make a business run. While we’d all like to believe that it’s the firm’s leaders (aka ‘us’) ‘whose actions and initiatives are what impact the company the most,’ that’s not really true. Without every worker, without people figuring out how to do their jobs better each day, we wouldn’t have a business. Do you recall the famous picture of General Eisenhower greeting the troops prior to their departure for Normandy shores? His message to them was clear: it’s the troops that matter, not the generals.

Keep it Simple: “The principle is pretty simple [said the head of a large city’s police department] to find who will make the best sergeant. You find out what top performers do. You train others to do what they do, and they become top performers, as well.” Despite a stunning amount of research and analysis on leadership and training, often the best work is a result of good people doing everyday tasks extremely well, making constant minute adjustments. “Sometimes it is wise to Keep it Simple. There is a lot less to distract, deter and derail your efforts.”

Explore New Territory and Embrace Change: Simply, doing the same thing over and over again (as Marshall Goldsmith writes, ‘what got you’re here won’t get you there’) is a path to obsolescence. To find untapped opportunities that excite you, ‘explore new territories to move your team.’ Being satisfied with the status quo leads to boredom, little room for growth, and passivity.

The author sums his blog by saying that we need to seek stories, helping us understand the paths others have taken, and seeing what they’ve learned from their lessons, which can be wisdom or affirmation of our direction.

An issue of CIO Dashboard begins with five IT assessment questions which a new CIO should investigate. Of the five, two related to the relationship between business and IT. These were:

First, do business and IT leaders regularly interact?

Second, can business sponsors for the top 5 projects describe a project’s business case in one sentence? (This is quite a feat!)

Taking them in turn, the interaction CIO Dashboard describes has nothing to do with a quick hallway discussion or even the regular status meetings, which I think most would agree are not a good use of time. Rather, they suggest a ‘regularly scheduled time during which real issues are discussed and concrete planning is discussed on a one-on-one basis.’ An example they give is a weekly meeting between a CTO and a head of business strategy. Real work can be accomplished in a meeting where leaders seriously question each other and change direction if necessary. I know a company which has weekly reviews of its technology accomplishments with the business counterpart. The continuation of the technology project is subject to the weekly assessment of the business manager — this is a lot of work but it engages both parties in mutual goals and doesn’t let troubled projects go astray.

CIO Dashboard identifies regular meetings you should look for as indicative of a interaction that can distinguish a company:

CTO/Chief Architect with the head of strategy

CTO/Chief Architect with the head of new product/service development

Head of Applications with the business unit/functional leaders

Head of Ops/Infrastructure with the head of customer service

IT person responsible for people with the head of HR/recruiting

IT Controller with the corporate controller

These partnerships are in line with my point of view about fully engaging the other party. Unless both business and IT have ongoing and trusted discussions, where meaningful decisions can be made, there will be continual disappointment with the output of the technology organization, and they will remain as mere providers of infrastructure.

How many business sponsors really understand the technology business case? Normally these are completed by the IT organization with revenue and non-technical costs provided by the business. But generally the responsibility falls to the technology staff to write and build the business case. This is backwards! The business should be in the lead and provide:

Succinctly stated business objective to be met by the IT project — there can be no hesitation here

Metrics of project success, including timing

Revenue (of the non-hockey stick variety)

Improvements, if any, to business process enabled by the technology implementation and cost reductions or competitive enhancement

Changes in brand value or market position due to the technology

To improve the dialogue between business and technology, you really need to get into the nitty-gritty and share responsibility for the process and end product. Why does it seem that other service providers — marketing, finance — don’t appear to have the same difficulty having a truly harmonious approach?

With apologies to Strother Martin and Paul Newman, who spoke the title of this blog in their 1967 movie Cool Hand Luke, I was recently on VoiceAmerica (http://www.voiceamerica.com/show/1984) internet radio, where I was interviewed about this topic, specifically relating to the communication failures between information technology managers and business managers and the impact of virtual teams.

During the podcast, I made observations about these two groups who should be working together very closely – more closely than ever:

With only 50% of all technology projects coming in on budget and with full functionality and features, the financial benefit of fixing the problem is significant.

Outsourcing and on-shoring have further complicated the relationship by invoking other cultures and more layers of management.

Change management is often given short shrift, yet it is the only way to ensure new technology is adopted by the business – this is a business problem that often falls to the technology organization.

Consumerization of IT has put technology in an uncomfortable position because corporate IT is just not as simple to deploy and secure as consumer IT. It’s a fact. But the simplicity and ease of what consumers can do at home versus what they encounter at work requires a different and more understanding response from information technology organizations. The notion of ‘can do’ should become part of the corporate IT vernacular.

Virtual teams compound the problem – now both cohorts need to be more deliberate. Chance meetings in hallways and at lunch are no longer alternatives. Teams need to plan to speak and review plans and deliverables.

IT governance can help solidify the technology/business relationship through monitoring of deliverables and provide incremental funding only if business needs are met.

Information technology and business managers should communicate like good friends – easy, ongoing and open discussions, with no hesitancy to raise problems or offer praise. Let’s not forget that the phrase ‘failure to communicate’ was uttered in a chain gang setting!

Technology management is not getting any easier, despite technology’s ubiquity, the ease with which we integrate it with our daily lives and cloud-based services, which should simplify nearly everything if you believe the press.

The primary reason why there’s a disconnect — a lack of meshing — between users who believe technology should be straightforward and the reality for corporate technology providers is that corporate technology is customized and that requires users and developers to really understand each other. In fact, I would argue that technology is becoming more difficult to implement successfully.

I continue to see a true lack of communication between the business and technology organizations and implementation failures resulting from lack of understanding rather than anything technical. In fact, which I’ve mentioned before, a recent McKinsey survey found a low score of 26% for technology leaders proactively engaging with business leaders on new ideas or system enhancements. This has been a problem for as long as I recall. I know the 26% figure can be raised.

Trouble is, the business people see the problem but don’t know what to do, while the technologists are so focused on coding and infrastructure and having a project number, they don’t realize the problem’s root cause. Neither side wants to step into the shoes of the other.

Many ‘blocks’ exist to fixing this problem. The ‘blocks’ I would concentrate on to solve the problem are:

Specifically focusing CIO/CEO discussions on the conversations that should be held between business managers for whom the technology is being developed and the technologists.

Understanding the daily relationship between the business managers and technologists. Normally this is highly discontinuous – which leads to disappointment during user acceptance testing and implementation of the final release.

Addressing the unknown effect of outsourcing development, which further distances the business from his/her technology provider. I think this leads to more ‘throwing it over the fence’ by the business, upsetting the technologists who see themselves more than ever as order takers. Further, outsourcing highlights communication problems due to cultural, distance and language differences. And it adds another opportunity for management miscommunication.

The dilemma of a CIO who gets kudos for executing ‘overhead’ and believes that is sufficient for creating a strong line of communication and openness with the business organization. With all the articles and analyses on the importance and role of technology enabling strategy, it’s a shame that the relationship to create a working union still has so far to go.

The ‘blocks’ can be addressed through improved governance, enhanced communication, more mutual planning, and having all parties participate equally. The gears of both parties need to engage and remain meshed.

A recent McKinsey survey (from December 2011 McKinsey Quarterly “A Rising Role for IT: McKinsey Global Survey Results”) notes a true dichotomy in IT performance and IT’s role in business decision-making. While an increasing number of non-IT executives give IT a score of 61% for basic services like email and laptop support, only 26% rank IT high in the most vital area of ‘proactively engaging with business leaders on new ideas or systems enhancements.’

Maybe not surprisingly, nothing has changed in decades. Technologists get strong scores for executing the basics well — the infrastructure, which is unfortunately not viewed as a value-added activity. Yet, the business still does not think highly of IT where it can matter most: jointly developing strategies to make the corporation more competitive and effective.

A business entity that only relies on technology for doing ‘overhead’ well is not a business that will engender or strive for a strong line of communication and openness with the IT organization, thereby hindering productivity, cost reduction, market positioning and organizational growth. With all the articles and analyses on the importance and role of technology enabling strategy, it’s a shame that the relationship to create a working union still has so far to go.

I continue to see a true lack of communication between the business and technology organizations, resulting in implementation failures due to lack of understanding rather than anything technical.

Our goal as business and technology managers should be to raise the number reported by McKinsey, develop a truly integrated relationship between the two, and expect nothing less. I do not believe the problem is that hard to fix.

Very rarely — except possibly on the most technical projects — is collaborating with the business not a necessity on technology projects. Indeed, it is the goal of technology to enable the business; thus, technology and business management cannot avoid each other! Working together towards a goal is a must.

What I learned from more than three decades of working in financial services at the intersection of technology and business is that one management capability normally stands in the way of successful technology projects: the inability to collaborate.

Collaboration is a necessity of growing importance. Why? There are four reasons:

First, business functions are now distributed globally. Going it alone is simply no longer likely.

Second, decision-making is more dispersed. More people are involved in decision-making than before because technology’s reach and impact have increased and security is paramount.

Third, IT consumerization encourages more inputs from a broader audience. I believe consumerization and social networking are part of the same trend to more involvement from all corners, which is positive for learning and knowledge.

Fourth, Millennials are entering the work force and they’re ultra comfortable collaborating in-person or remotely. They willingly learn from others.

Because collaboration is a process, what is often missing is the reason for coming together. Just because there’s a joint project, it doesn’t mean everyone is on board and committed.

During an American Management Association webinar (“The Art of Collaborative Teaming,” by Pauline Larkin), the speaker used a term I’d never considered before: “The Superordinate Goal.” What Ms. Larkin said was that for collaboration to be successful, the team must “share an important, valuable goal that transcends personal goals.”

The team’s goal should be so deeply held that it creates strong morale and spirit, allows the different organizations to share wins and successes, opens dialogue, creates a feeling of belonging, and defines success for the whole team. If you can do this, you’ve built a splendid and effective team that should allow technology projects to prosper.

Executives face unprecedented pressure to perform in today’s complex, dynamic business environment. As a former Fortune 500 senior executive,
Frank Faeth understands exactly what it takes for leaders and managers to overcome challenges and seize opportunities.
Frank applies his blue-chip business background to coach high-potential leaders and managers on how to perform at their personal best. Principles of clear communication, relationship building, compassionate leadership and active listening underpin his approach to coaching
. Read Full Bio Here.